Consultation on Proposals for a Court Structure for the Future

SCOTTISH COURT SERVICE

CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR A COURT STRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE

Response Form

Incorporating the Respondent Information Form

September 2012

SCOTTISH COURT SERVICE CONSULTATION

PROPOSALS FOR A COURT STRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE

RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM

Please return this form with your response to ensure that we handle your response appropriately.

1. Name/Organisation

Organisation Name

Title

Surname

Connard

Forename

Roger

2. Postal Address

Postcode:
Telephone:
E-mail:

3. Permissions

I am responding as:

an individual

a group or organisation

Please enter an X in the appropriate box

If you are responding as an individual, please answer question 4(a) and, if appropriate, question 4(b).

If you are responding as a group or organisation the name and address of your group or organisation will be made available to the public and published on the Scottish Courts web site. Please mark the appropriate box in question 5 to indicate whether you are content for your response to be made public.

4. Permissions as an individual

(a)

Do you agree to your response being made available to the public (in paper copy and/or on the Scottish Courts web site)?

YES

Please enter an X in the appropriate box

(b)

Where confidentiality is not requested, we will make your responses available to the public on the following basis

Please enter an X in ONE of the following boxes

Yes, make my response, name and address all available

Yes, make my response available, but not my name and address

Yes, make my response and name available, but not my address

5. Permissions as a group/organisation

Are you content for your response to be made available?

YES

Please enter an X in the appropriate box

****************************

CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR A COURT STRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE

RESPONSE FORM

The proposals and questions are set out on the following pages of this form.

Please enter your response within the box of the question you are responding to. The box will expand to allow for your text.

Please return the completed respondent information form and your response to the consultation

by e-mail to:

by post to: Scottish Court Service

Field Services Directorate

Court Structures Consultation

1A Parliament Square

Edinburgh, EH1 1RF

Your response should reach us by noon on Friday, 21 December 2012.

The High Court Circuit

Pages 23 to 25 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 1

The proposal for change to the court structure supporting the High Court Circuit is that:

(a) the High Court should sit as a court of first instance primarily in dedicated High Court centres in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen;

(b) additional sitting capacity should be provided only in designated sheriff courts in the east and west of the country;

(c) there should remain the opportunity for a sitting of the High Court to be held at another location when the Lord Justice General or the Lord Advocate considers that to be in the interests of justice;

(d) these changes to the current arrangements should be phased over the period to 31 March 2015, and that during this period, additional capacity, when required, could be provided from a bank of courts, which would be Greenock, Paisley, Dumbarton, Livingston and Dunfermline.

Question 1 Do you agree with the proposed structure of sittings of the High Court at first instance?

Response

Question 2 If you disagree with the proposed structure of sittings of the High Court at first instance, or a specific aspect of the proposal, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) how you would prefer the sittings structured, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

Response

Question 3 What impact would our proposals for High Court sittings at first instance have on you?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Response

Consolidating sheriff and jury business and other shrieval specialisation

Pages 27 to 31 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 2

The proposal for changes to the supporting structure for sheriff and jury business and the exclusive civil, administrative and miscellaneous jurisdiction of the sheriff is that:

(a) in the mainland jurisdictions, sheriff and jury business should routinely be held only at the sheriff courts of: Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Edinburgh, Livingston, Paisley, Dumbarton, Kilmarnock, Airdrie, Hamilton, Ayr, Dumfries, Perth, Dundee, Falkirk and Dunfermline;

(b) in the mainland jurisdictions, as the body of summary sheriffs became established, the sixteen sheriff and jury centres would become centres of shrieval specialism in the civil, administrative and miscellaneous jurisdiction of the sheriff, where business in those jurisdictions would be dealt with;

(c) the sheriff courts at Lerwick, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Lochmaddy and Portree would continue to hear all business within the jurisdiction of the sheriff;

(d) the changes, being dependent on the deployment of sheriffs and summary sheriffs, court capacity becoming available and the development of the use of video and other communications technology in court proceedings, would be progressively introduced over a period of ten years.

Question 4 Do you agree with the proposals for a supporting court structure for sheriff and jury business?

Response

Question 5 If you disagree with the proposals for sheriff and jury business, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) how you would prefer the provision of court facilities for sheriff and jury business to be structured, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

Response

Question 6 Do you agree with the proposal that the sheriff and jury centres should become centres of specialism in the civil, administrative and miscellaneous jurisdiction exclusive to sheriffs?

Response

Question 7 If you disagree with the proposal that sheriff and jury centres should become centres of shrieval specialism, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) how you would prefer the exercise of the sheriff’s exclusive civil, administrative and miscellaneous jurisdiction to be structured, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

Response

Question 8 What impact would the hearing of sheriff and jury business only in these sixteen centres have on you?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Response

Question 9 What impact would shrieval specialisation based in the sheriff and jury centres have on you?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Response

Justice of the peace courts in towns where there is no sheriff courthouse

Pages 34 to 36 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 3

The proposal for the five justice of the peace courts in towns where there is no sheriff courthouse is that:

(a) the justice of the peace courts at Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Annan, Irvine and Motherwell should close and the business be transferred to a justice of the peace court sitting in the sheriff courthouse for the district;

(b) these changes, which are dependent on there being sufficient capacity in the respective sheriff courthouses, should be phased over the financial years 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Question 10 Do you agree with the proposals for the justice of the peace courts at Annan, Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Irvine and Motherwell?

Response

Question 11 If you do not agree with the proposals, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) what court structure would you prefer to support the business of these justice of the peace courts, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

Response

Question 12 What impact would the closure of these justice of the peace courts have on you?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Response

The Justice of the Peace Courts at Portree, Stornoway and Wick

Page 37 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 4

The proposal for the justice of the peace courts at Portree, Stornoway and Wick is that these courts should be disestablished and that all summary criminal business be heard in the local sheriff court.

Question 13 Do you agree with the proposal to disestablish the justice of the peace courts at Portree, Stornoway and Wick?

Response

Question 14 If you disagree with the proposal to disestablish these justice of the peace courts, please say

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) what alternative proposal you would prefer to see in place, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

Response

Question 15 What impact would the disestablishment of the justice of the peace courts at Portree, Stornoway and Wick have on you?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Response

Sheriff courts with low volumes of business

Pages 38 to 40 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 5

The proposal for the five courts falling below our measure for low volume is that:

(a) sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts should cease to be held in Dornoch, Duns, Kirkcudbright and Peebles, a sheriff court should cease to be held at Rothesay, and the court buildings and court accommodation in those places should be closed;

(b) the business from these courts should be transferred to the neighbouring sheriff court districts and be heard at the sheriff courthouse in Tain, Jedburgh, Dumfries, Edinburgh and Greenock respectively;

Question 16 Do you agree with the proposal to close the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts at Dornoch, Duns, Kirkcudbright, Peebles and the sheriff court at Rothesay and transfer the business into the neighbouring sheriff court districts of Tain, Jedburgh, Dumfries, Edinburgh and Greenock respectively?

Response

I disagree strongly with the proposal to close the sheriff court at Rothesay

Question 17 If you disagree with the proposals regarding these courts, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) how you would prefer the sheriff court and justice of the peace court provision for these districts structured, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

If you are commenting on only some of the courts affected, please indicate to which court(s) your answer relates.

Response

For Rothesay the suggested annual saving of £6000 will be far exceeded by the extra public and private expense incurred by the closure (travelling costs, police time, witness time etc).

The suggested annual saving of £6,000 (as part of an estimated overall annual saving of £1,229,000) is totally disproportionate to the additional stress and inconvenience that all involved will experience (wasted journeys, delay, etc)

The closure of Rothesay would make nil contribution to the total estimated backlog maintenance saving of £4,256,000.

The proposal fails to recognise the realities of ferry travel (service disruption, amber warnings, witnesses for both sides travelling on the same ferry, etc).

Despite the claim in para 3.61, the proposal in relation to Rothesay fails properly to take into account the "Principles for provision of Access to Justice", in particular Principles D, E and H. Although residents on the Isle of Bute have reasonable access to Greenock, it is in no sense "local". For example, it is outwith the coverage of the Buteman weekly newspaper.

For all these reasons, I believe that the current arrangements (which already incorporate major cost savings) are the most appropriate ones for an island with a substantial population, and that they should be left unchanged.

Question 18 How would the closure of any of these courts affect you?

Please give reasons for your answer and indicate to which court(s) your answer relates.

Response

If the Rothesay court were to be closed, as an island resident I would be much more reluctant to come forward as a witness. As a defendant, I would anticipate much greater difficulty in presenting my case and securing evidence from other witnesses.

Sheriff courts in proximity to each other

Pages 38, 39 and 42 to 44 of the Consultation Paper.

Proposal 6

The proposal for the sheriff courts that are in proximity to another sheriff court where there is capacity to take additional business, or that capacity will become available as a consequence of other changes, is that:

(a) sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts should cease to be held in Alloa, Cupar, Dingwall, Arbroath, Haddington and Stonehaven and the court buildings and court accommodation in those places should be closed;

(b) the business from these courts should be transferred to the neighbouring sheriff court districts and be heard at the sheriff courthouse in Stirling (solemn business in Falkirk), Dundee, Inverness, Forfar, Edinburgh and Aberdeen respectively;

Question 19 Do you agree with the proposals to close the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts at Alloa, Cupar, Dingwall, Arbroath, Haddington and Stonehaven and transfer the business into the sheriff court districts of Stirling/Falkirk, Dundee, Inverness, Forfar, Edinburgh and Aberdeen respectively?

Response

Question 20 If you disagree with the proposals to close these courts, please say:

(a) why you disagree, and

(b) how you would prefer the sheriff court and justice of the peace court provision for these districts structured, being as specific as you can about how your preference would operate in practice.

If you are commenting on only some of the courts affected, please indicate to which court(s) your answer relates.

Response

Question 21 How would the closure of any of these courts affect you?

Please give reasons for your answer and indicate to which court(s) your answer relates.

Response

Sheriff court district boundaries

Page 46 of the Consultation Paper.

Question 22 If you consider that the boundary of any sheriff court district should be redrawn, please specify what changes you would like to see made, and give your reasons for the changes you propose.

Response

General Questions

Question 23 If there are any aspects of this consultation paper about which you wish to comment and an opportunity to do so has not arisen in any of the earlier questions, please let us have your comments here.

Response

Question 24 If there are any aspects of the provision of court services in Scotland about which you wish to comment, express a view or offer an idea, and an opportunity to do so has not arisen any of the earlier questions, please let us have your comments, views and ideas here.

Response